(10-09-2015 08:53 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: It's not a middle position. That was never stated. It's moral nihilism. There is nothing that is "wrong" or "right" so it's in no way either objective or subjective. It's not individually relevant when not existent... I don't know what you aren't seeing here. How many threads after threads do there have to be on these topics repeatedly going in circles?

I think you confusing two questions, one relating to the content of a prescriptive moral statement, such as "it's wrong to torture babies just for the fun it." Whether the "wrong" being associated with it, is something most folks see as objectively wrong, or as subjectively wrong.

Highlighting the fact that you're a moral nihilist doesn't answer that question. All that this would clarify is that you wouldn't consider it morally wrong or right, even though most people would consider it morally wrong.

Because you changed the question. Yes initially I wasn't talking about my position because you're talking about what the majority of people think.

Then you asked what I CLAIM. Whether I claim it is neither subjective or objective and yes I do not think it is either.

(10-09-2015 08:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote: Are you claiming that the wrongness of torturing babies just for the fun it, for you is neither objectively or subjectively wrong?

Look back at what you are asking and what is being answered clearly. I'm not confusing the questions you asked two different questions at separate times.

I don't know what people would think to your absurd style question, because it's not a reasonable moral claim. I don't think the assumption is correct though that just overall, people deep down view morality objectively. Because information when you actually study what peoples moral positions are in various examinations show it differs from that. Plus, it differs based on factors a lot of what "moral value" a person holds to more esteem or not. People have differing views of what they think is morally fitting for them, vs other people across the world at times.

If you want to find answers, you use actual moral quandaries and actual moral qualms that reflect peoples actions and thoughts routinely to get to see how they focus and think. Not fallacious examples. That doesn't help inquire much at all.

And to clarify. my point of subjective not being "JUST" the only option opposed to Objective. That was what I was saying and because Nihilist/subjective are equally. It's not merely a this/that proposition because Nihilism is a none choice in the situation. That is not something that sensibly is something to ignore. Now I'm not saying the "normal" person is nihilist but that is added into the pile of % of peoples views along with subjective when the statement is, something not objective.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(10-09-2015 11:34 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: Because you changed the question. Yes initially I wasn't talking about my position because you're talking about what the majority of people think.

Yes, in the one of the subsequent post, I did inadvertently change the question from what most people think, to what you think, because it wasn't evident at the time that there was a real distinction. So that was my fault, now that you cleared up that you're a moral nihilist.

I’m sure you’re aware that most people aren’t moral nihilist. And while you might avoid declaring that it’s morally wrong to torture babies just for the fun of it, because of the fact that you’re a moral nihilist. I’m sure you’re aware that most people wouldn’t have a problem declaring this. That most people have no qualms in making moral statements, in calling things morally wrong.

Quote:I don't know what people would think to your absurd style question, because it's not a reasonable moral claim.

There’s nothing wrong with the moral claim. It’s one that leaves no room for ambiguity, in which the circumstance is defined. And would pose no problem for anyone besides a moral nihilist. If I went around asking people if they thought torturing babies just for fun was morally wrong, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that most people would answer yes, it is morally wrong. The only kickback I’d likely find is from people who wonder why I’d even ask such a question, when the answer should be obvious. And perhaps from those scant handful of moral nihilist who don’t believe there is such a thing as morally right and wrong.

Quote:nd to clarify. my point of subjective not being "JUST" the only option opposed to Objective. That was what I was saying and because Nihilist/subjective are equally.

It is the only two options in regards to what morally “wrong” means here, by those who have no qualms using the term “wrong”.

You could be a moral nihilist, and recognize when I say something like torturing babies just for the fun of it is morally wrong, that I mean wrong in an objective sense, that it’s wrong in the way that 2+2=5 is wrong. And that’s exactly how most people mean it as well.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(10-09-2015 12:11 PM)Tomasia Wrote: I’m sure you’re aware that most people aren’t moral nihilist. And while you might avoid declaring that it’s morally wrong to torture babies just for the fun of it, because of the fact that you’re a moral nihilist. I’m sure you’re aware that most people wouldn’t have a problem declaring this. That most people have no qualms in making moral statements, in calling things morally wrong.

This is true, but that doesn't give you any profoundness to how they actually think and act in real scenarios. Because it's too excessive of a example. You often reflect not taking peoples comments here on face value, so this would be a case where you shouldn't do it rightfully so. If you want actual insight, you have to create questions and experiments with as few variables besides the intended ones you want. This boils down to the point Stevil was making, people will indeed call things morally wrong, that doesn't mean it's what they truly think though.

When you discuss moral quandaries to people like the trolley problem, fairness in living conditions across the world, values based on particular groups traditions, or what moral law they actually want to obey, you get people far more varied and unconfirmed in their stances.

Many people do few things in an objective manner still. Not certainly enough for sure to declare that's surely a case of what the majority and normal view is.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(10-09-2015 02:31 PM)ClydeLee Wrote: This boils down to the point Stevil was making, people will indeed call things morally wrong, that doesn't mean it's what they truly think though.

It's like when two people (who recognise each other) cross paths (walking in opposite directions). One person might speak "How's it?" or "How's things?" or "How are you?".

The expected response is "Good thanks, and you?"
They say "Good" and you both continue walking in opposite directions.

What they are not expecting is for you to give them a break down of your health and mental issues or your domestic problems or otherwise.

It's just a simple way of acknowledging one another. Personally I just do the head flick nod thing (A quick jerk upwards of the head) no words necessary but acheives the same result. But people have their various methods and if a person goes the verbal approach then I am forced to respond with "Good" even though I might be feeling shitty.

Anyway, when a person (in passing) talks about the ISIS being bad or immoral for chopping people's heads off. It's just an acknowledgement that they have heard the story of the day and are wondering if you heard it too. It isn't meant to become a philosophical discussion on what is meant by the terms "good" or "immoral".

On forums like this we can get into that philosophy, but in real life, you just go by the norms. The person is basically asking if you heard the news of the ISIS latest achievements.

(10-09-2015 02:31 PM)ClydeLee Wrote: This boils down to the point Stevil was making, people will indeed call things morally wrong, that doesn't mean it's what they truly think though.

That doesn't even make sense. So when someone such as myself says something is morally wrong, what does it mean if it doesn't truly represent what I think?

Quote:When you discuss moral quandaries to people like the trolley problem, fairness in living conditions across the world, values based on particular groups traditions, or what moral law they actually want to obey, you get people far more varied and unconfirmed in their stances.

And what does the mean beyond people often disagree on what they believe is right and wrong? And sometimes find themselves in grey areas in which they're not sure what the right decision would be?

Quote:Many people do few things in an objective manner still.

And? You could say God beliefs for most people are not derived in an objective manner, yet when someone claim God exists, we can recognize their stating something the believe to be objectively true, and not the equivalent of stating that I like ice scream.

Quote:Not certainly enough for sure to declare that's surely a case of what the majority and normal view is.

No, I can say with a great deal of confidence that not only do I understand what the average persons views are, and that I'm far more likely to represent those views, than someone such as yourself and stevil, who subscribe to moral nihilism. My life experiences, my upbringing, the larger and multiethnic communities that I belonged to and been a part of my life, are representative of the average person, not outliers.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(10-09-2015 03:06 PM)Stevil Wrote: It's like when two people (who recognise each other) cross paths (walking in opposite directions). One person might speak "How's it?" or "How's things?" or "How are you?".

The expected response is "Good thanks, and you?"
They say "Good" and you both continue walking in opposite directions.

Yes, because we recognize it as formality, a form of greeting. We respond with the answer "good". Because we know the person asking how are you, doesn't really care about our day, nor do we feel the need to share it with them. But if a close friend asked the same question, or when i ask my wife how was her day, she provides an honest response. Because we both know that we care about how each other days really went, and that we would like the other person to know about it.

Quote:On forums like this we can get into that philosophy, but in real life, you just go by the norms. The person is basically asking if you heard the news of the ISIS latest achievements.

No, that's not what they're doing. Sure they're sharing the news, but by claiming the actions were immoral, they are expressing a disproval, distaste at the actions ISIS is committing, it might not express what should be done to stop them, but it expresses a view that they find their actions morally objectionable, "wrong".

And you don't need to go into the philosophy, or cultivate a complete framework, or moral philosophy, to believe things are wrong objectively. When I was child seeing a kid getting bullying in school was something I recognized as wrong, though I lacked any knowledge of philosophy, or way to articulate my moral perspective clearly, but what I meant by "wrong" is something i meant objectively, and not me just expressing my feelings, or opinions on the subject.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

(10-09-2015 06:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote: And you don't need to go into the philosophy, or cultivate a complete framework, or moral philosophy, to believe things are wrong objectively.

No, but you do need to do that if you want anyone to think that such a belief is justified.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it." - A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner

(10-09-2015 06:35 PM)Tomasia Wrote: No, that's not what they're doing. Sure they're sharing the news, but by claiming the actions were immoral, they are expressing a disproval, distaste at the actions ISIS is committing...

Well, yes and no. They are really just bringing up the topic.
They could have said "Did you hear about Isis chopping of such and such's head?"

But of course they aren't a corner street newspaper sales person. so they don't do a "Read all about it!" broadcast. So they cover up this broadcast in the guise of offering their own opinion, "it is immoral, it is terrible" yadda yadda.

They aren't going to say it is great, right? So their opinion is pretty much redundant. All they are doing is broadcasting the news, because they find it interesting and want to know that others know about it.

They certainly aren't bringing up the news as a seque to discuss the morality or immorality of chopping people's heads off.

(10-09-2015 02:31 PM)ClydeLee Wrote: This boils down to the point Stevil was making, people will indeed call things morally wrong, that doesn't mean it's what they truly think though.

That doesn't even make sense. So when someone such as myself says something is morally wrong, what does it mean if it doesn't truly represent what I think?

Quote:When you discuss moral quandaries to people like the trolley problem, fairness in living conditions across the world, values based on particular groups traditions, or what moral law they actually want to obey, you get people far more varied and unconfirmed in their stances.

And what does the mean beyond people often disagree on what they believe is right and wrong? And sometimes find themselves in grey areas in which they're not sure what the right decision would be?

Quote:Many people do few things in an objective manner still.

And? You could say God beliefs for most people are not derived in an objective manner, yet when someone claim God exists, we can recognize their stating something the believe to be objectively true, and not the equivalent of stating that I like ice scream.

Quote:Not certainly enough for sure to declare that's surely a case of what the majority and normal view is.

No, I can say with a great deal of confidence that not only do I understand what the average persons views are, and that I'm far more likely to represent those views, than someone such as yourself and stevil, who subscribe to moral nihilism. My life experiences, my upbringing, the larger and multiethnic communities that I belonged to and been a part of my life, are representative of the average person, not outliers.

How does it not make sense? Because I tell someone I love them, does that mean I actually love them? No it doesn't truly mean I actually think that. There is multiple explications of why that might not be the case.

I think that's pompous arrogance to your claims of knowing what the average persons views are. We shouldn't ever significantly judge our experiences truly mash up to the most of what is out there, there is so much we miss on a regular basis. I don't proclaim my experience is founding an understanding of... I'm proclaiming that sociological and psychological studying of people is an understanding that extrapolates more. Plus frequent studying of peoples thoughts and beliefs show how what a person says in a loose simple discussion isn't deeply reflective of their thoughts and actions.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

(11-09-2015 01:23 AM)ClydeLee Wrote: How does it not make sense? Because I tell someone I love them, does that mean I actually love them? No it doesn't truly mean I actually think that. There is multiple explications of why that might not be the case.

Sometimes you have to give up some sugar in order to get some sweetness back (you know what I'm talking about)